December 06, 2009

Friday's "fall finale" of the USA series "White Collar" provoked some strong responses -- and a surprising admission from the show's executive producer on Twitter. Read on if you've seen the episode.

I can't say I'm a fan of the surprise twist at the end of Friday's "White Collar" episode.

The best twists make you go, "Oh cool!" My reaction to seeing Peter in that chair, wearing the Evil Villain ring, was "What? Um. Huh…."

The twist didn't feel particularly earned. To me, it came out of left field, and not necessarily in a good way. And the short scene felt far too melodramatic for this otherwise easy-breezy caper show -- I almost expected the ring-wearing Peter to be twirling a mustache, or at the very least petting a Siamese cat, Bond-villain style.

I suppose the twist ending worked, on one level: I am wondering what will happen on Jan. 19, which is when "White Collar" returns with new episodes. The cliffhanger may be resolved well or it may not be. But either way, the Peter in that scene just didn't (for me anyway) jibe with the character we'd come to know. Peter's certainly very smart, but he also appears to be a guy who mostly plays by the rules. For the show to suddenly put him in that super-villain chair, complete with giant pinky ring -- well, that dun-dun-dun turn felt a bit abrupt.

I have to agree with the wary tone Alan Sepinwall struck in his short post about the episode: "While it was fun to see Neal act like a criminal again, I'm really hoping that the final scene of the episode was designed to be misleading. Because if it was what it looked like it was, I may be even less interested in the show than I was before."

I had other problems with the episode too. Why was Peter so quick to believe that Neal took the necklace? Possible answers: A) he never believed it, but then, why have Peter say he believed it? B) he did believe it, which doesn't make much sense, given that Peter knows Neal wouldn't be dumb enough to sign the fake diamond. I can't quite put my finger on why, but something felt off about the way Peter and Neal's relationship was depicted in the episode -- and it wasn't just because we found out at the end that Peter had been playing games regarding Neal's former flame, Kate.

Whatever I thought of the episode, what's almost more interesting than the twist was the Twitter controversy that sprang up regarding the episode. Even before I watched the episode (which I didn't get to until Sunday), I got a hint that something was brewing via the Twitter feed of creator Jeff Eastin.

After Friday's episode aired, Eastin tweeted, "Ha ha ha ha ha!" and later, "Don't assume anything you see is what it seems."

Later, however, Eastin's tone took a turn: "Due to the number of complaints, they're considering rethinking the rest of season one," Eastin tweeted Saturday night. "Trying to prevent that." Presumably "they" are USA network executives.

That statement disappeared from Eastin's Twitter feed soon after he sent it out, but nothing ever really goes away on the Internet. Strangely, this tweet also disappeared: "Peter has always known more than he let on, but he hasn't betrayed Neal." (Apparently Eastin also replied "Don't hate Peter" to one follower, according to TV Overmind, but I haven't been able to find that tweet, which may also have been deleted.)

On Saturday, Eastin sounded a bit more positive. He wrote, "Twitter running 90% positive for the ending. It's the 10% that's got them worried. :)" You can judge for yourself by reading fans' responses to Eastin on Twitter, but it would appear that people there generally responded positively to the episode, though some on Twitter and elsewhere were vocally disappointed with the implication that Peter had (possibly) doublecrossed Neal.

Whoever told Eastin to remove those tweets (or perhaps he took it upon himself to remove them) should know that it's not possible to erase these kinds of things once they're out there, and the effort to do so just looks panicky. Eastin engaging fans online is a good thing (and I hope this experience doesn't dissuade him from continuing to tweet). Lots of other showrunners are doing just that sort of thing, but there's clearly a way to do it well. Honesty, not spin, is the best policy in these situations.

If there isn't a certain degree of transparency and honest (or at least relevant) information in showrunners' Twitter feeds, they're boring and useless and do nothing positive for the show. I've unfollowed some TV writers because they don't provide a window into the creation of their shows or anything else of interest. And it goes without saying that writers (and network execs) shouldn't necessarily live or die by what Tweeple say. That kind of insta-feedback is certainly worth pondering, but if Eastin and the network have a thoughtful plan for the show's future development (and I certainly hope they do), they should stick with it.

But the Twit-storm, entertaining as it is, is a side issue. Here's the important thing about that vanished tweet from Eastin: I am worried that USA executives are worried about the wrong thing. I very much hope that the network doesn't respond to this little online kerfuffle by making Eastin tone down the rest of the season.

"White Collar" does not need to be more safe and risk-averse. If anything, the show needs healthy (or perhaps unhealthy) doses of grit, heft and ambiguity.

Even if this particular twist doesn't work out (and we won't know until Jan. 19 whether it did), in general, unpredictability is a good thing, as long as the sharp turns are set up in a creative and intelligent fashion. And if the show makes Peter and Neal and their relationship more complicated in the future, all the better.

Though I wouldn't put it in the must-see category, as I said in my review, I generally like the show, which debuted in October. On the plus side, it's a harmless slice of escapism, and thus fits in well with the other fare on USA. But on the minus side, "White Collar" is slight, prone to an over-reliance on coincidence and convenience (Neal Cafferty just happens to know the M.O. of every forger, art thief and con artist out there) and I can easily see it sliding into a predictable formula that could get old fast.

Though its lead actors, Tim DeKay and Matthew Bomer, are very skilled and have good chemistry (which is what makes up for the sometimes so-so plotting), "White Collar" notably lacks the undercurrent of tension and even melancholy that informs USA's best show, "Burn Notice" (which -- thank goodness -- returns Jan. 21). The best "Burn" episodes have crackerjack plots and, more importantly, there's an element of darkness to "Burn's" Michael Westen that makes him compelling.

On "White Collar," Neal is too slick and suave to have an obvious edge to him (presumably he must have an edge to have turned to a life of crime, but he keeps his darker side well hidden). Peter, as the show's straight man, is square and uncool -- he can be crafty at times, but by design, he's supposed to be far from edgy.

Though that combination of slick and square works in "White Collar's" favor, tonally and comedically, one of the main things that keeps me coming back to "Burn Notice" is Michael's restless dissatisfaction and his drive to clear his name. At the center of that show is a seriousness of purpose that grounds every other development, comedic or dramatic.

What I'm trying to say is, I'm strongly in favor of the characters on "White Collar" traversing moral gray areas, having more serious conflicts and having slightly weightier ongoing quests (Neal's desire to see Kate again is a good start, but that seems likely to play itself out sooner rather than later).

Sure, USA shows are meant to be "blue sky" escapist fantasies, but there's such a thing as being too lightweight. I'd hate for "White Collar" to squander its very real potential by playing it too safe.

As far as Friday's episode goes, if Peter has been playing Neal from the beginning, that's a very big a shift for that character. If Peter has been, in essence, running a con on Neal, there had better be a good explanation for that (and again, no matter how things turn out, I wish the groundwork for that last scene, and that possible shift, had been laid better).

And there may yet be a reasonably satisfying resolution to all this. We'll see. My prediction is this (and this is pure speculation): I bet Peter has actually been playing Neal's ex, Kate. Maybe she's the one who's been after Neal's secret stash this whole time, and maybe she's not really in substantial danger. I'm betting that somehow, by luring Kate into that room, Peter was trying to protect Neal or serve Neal's interests.

Or not. Perhaps Eastin has come up with an even more creative solution to this cliffhanger. If he has, I'm sure he won't be tweeting about the nature of the resolution (nor should he). But if he'd like to keep the Twitter conversation going, join in the "White Collar" discussion below or email me with a missive for fans about his overall plans for the show (at moryan@tribune.com), I invite him to do so.

NOTE: It may take a while for your comments to be posted, especially if they are posted late Sunday night or early Monday morning. I'll try to post them as quickly as I can Monday morning when I get up.

Thoughtful, if not ridiculously (meticulously) long post ... especially for a show you admit isn't "must see."

I'll admit I was stunned by the the cliffhanger, but only in a way that makes me want to keep watching. I think Jeff Eastin would be doing both himself and the fans a disservice to reveal more before January's return.

In the spirit of the season, I don't think he's put all his gifts under one tree just yet. I also think these kinds of twists are exactly what's needed to keep people talking.

Can't disagree with you more, Ms. Ryan about the show earning that ending. Or with Alan Sepinwall about the value of this show. And maybe that's because this *is* must-see TV for me.

There were clues everywhere thruout this season leading up to Peter knowing where Kate is. "Find Kate, you find Neal" was the way he caught Neal in the pilot. There have also been clues that he's been looking out for Neal. At one point in the pilot, he asks him "How many times are you going to screw up your life for this girl?"

But is he "holding her" or "controlling her"? Not likely. Is Kate being held by anyone? Also not likely. How do we know that Kate is "in trouble"? Neal tells us she is. Neal is a romantic. Neal can't imagine that his girl would dump him, betray him, then try to grab his stash. Someone must be forcing her to do this.

Yet, there's every indication that's exactly what she's done and that no one is forcing her. She went looking for Neal's ill-gotten goods in San Diego. They weren't there. So she tries another tactic to get him to turn over everything he has - she plays this cloak-and-dagger game, cryptic clues, phone calls, saying she's being held and "the man" wants everything.

There's a very good chance that Peter did catch up with Kate in San Diego and did warn her away from Neal. And that the photo was no more sinister than an ATM camera catching him tapping her on the shoulder and her realizing that she'd been found out by Peter.

And now, since he knows she's been contacting Neal, he's going to warn her again... to leave the kid alone and keep him from ruining his life again. To me, Kate in that doorway didn't look frightened by Peter. She looked like a kid who had been caught by her dad doing something he had told her not to do. And Peter looked for all the world like the dad who was about to call her on that and warn her again.

I'm thinking that there is a mole problem with the Feds -- and Peter's working for someone above the Rat Squad level, to root it out. It's the only reason that the OPI won't be torn a new one for being corrupt, which would hell of a crimp in the FBI cooperation WC's obviously getting.

If there's a Big Bad for Season one we haven't seen yet, then I'd believe that Peter'd have to turn heel both to convince any Fed moles A) he's worth cultivating as a partner and B) he's evil enough to blackmail Neil to join him. Justifying the pinky ring is child's play compared to what the writers must do to keep the surface tone light *and* make the characters deeper and darker.

This show's damnably frustrating in depicting only the pretty white collar crimes in the financial city most responsible for the meltdown and with a population of unindicted, filthy-rich criminals.

I'm happy with the ending, it makes me want to rewatch every episode so I can study it while processing the new information (Which is what I'm going to do when I'm finished posting this).I really hope they let it play out the way it's been written I think we'll all enjoy Whatever twists and turns the writter has already laid out.

I HATED the last 30 seconds of this episode. The best part of this show is definitely Neal and Peter's chemistry. Why mess with that? I completely agree that the plots are a little too light and some moral ambiguity would be welcome, but this? Not so much.

Has anyone else noticed that Kate bears a marked resemblance to Peter's wife? I like Tiffani Amber Thiessen (sp?) but her part is so underwritten as to be ridiculous.

I admit my knee-jerk reaction to the ending was not positive because, as you said, it came out of nowhere, especially this early into the series. And I wouldn't like what that says about Peter if we find out there is no misleading twist to the scene when we get back. But I can say I'll be back because, of course, I have to know one way or the other - twist or character shift, which is it? Certainly I'm still hookedat this point. Also, is there a significant casting reason for why Kate looks an awful lot like Peter's wife, Elizabeth?

But the bromance, as it were, between the two men is a large part of the appeal of a show like this, and the writers and network in general have to know that. So in the back of my mind, I assumed there was more going on - until the disappearing tweets/weird comments by Eastin. I hope he's just trying to stir up more interest and there isn't something bizarre going down behind the scenes. Yes, it is fun and hopefully enlightening to follow some of these guys on twitter or other places they post about their shows and work. But you quickly find out that some of them really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an internet connection, ala Aaron Sorkin. Time will tell in this case.

The plotting of that episode was not well thought through. An obvious loophole was why would someone stealing a diamond in full view of a camera leave a fake diamond behind. Particularly a very good fake diamond. My criminal mind took mere seconds to figure out that it would be smarter to steal the real one then sell it twice - or as many times as you could make fakes for and get away with.

That scene would have made more sense if it had been a Caffrey scam - make it look like a robbery and then swap the real diamond for a fake while 'examining' it.

Either Annedreya read my mind or read my blog because, yes, what she said. I never thought the end was what it looked like and I was only a bit surprised by it. If anything, I didn't think Jeff Eastin would reveal so soon in the series run that Peter has had contact with Kate. Peter, since the pilot, has tried to get Neal to move on from Kate. Why is he so adamant Neal needs to get away from her? He isn't warning him to stay away from Mozzie? I've long suspected that either Kate played a direct role in Neal's arrest or she's been playing him since his arrest to get her hands on everything he's stolen. And given that Neal liquidated only some of his assets to buy a bakery located on prime real estate in NYC means Neal has more wealth then I imagined.

I will admit I don't get the ring thing. I suspect it's just a visual shortcut to connect the man in the picture to Peter. It's not a strong or clever piece of writing, but I can live with it. What I'm more curious about is why Kate called Neal at the FBI? And what is Mentor? And why has Fowler been spying on Peter?

As far as Neal and Peter's relationship, I felt there interaction was in character. Peter still struggles to trust Neal, but he wants to trust him and he allowed Neal to escape in the hopes that Neal would prove his innocence. And that Neal made Elizabeth his accomplice was hilarious.

The most obvious explanation to me would be that Kate is running SOME sort of con on Neal, and probably isn't actually in any danger. She might possibly have some new boyfriend though. I read the very end as Peter being a step ahead of Neal and FINDING Kate, getting to her room first, and then confronting her about whatever she's trying to pull. I really don't think he's evil though.

I totally agree with much of what you said. Although with Matt Bomer as the lead it is must see TV for me :)

I have a few thoughts/theories though..I'd love to know what other viewers think.

Kate called him Peter -showing some familiarity, but she seemed a bit surprised to see him....And of course Kate seems free to come and go -so it is not like she is truly captive...

This is my BIG theory - there's more than one guy with a ring. I think there is a group of men with the ring -some sort of secret society, and they only wear the ring on occasion. But that still doesn't clear Peter, unless he knows the other folks with rings and searched their purchases and found a hotel room. But that doesn't explain the familiarity. ... Unless Kate is FBI??? And Kate and Peter working together? Neil was only convicted on one crime -so maybe they are tying to get more info on the other crimes?

And how did Kate know to call Neil at the FBI office? At that time...

And what is "Mentor?" in Hotel Room 525 with Fowler. Back to my secret club theory...One guy has headphones on...they all look like FBI agents. It must be a secret case if Mozzie could find it linked to any other cases?

I mean how can they keep it going in Peter is dirty? That totally messes with the chemistry.

The twist was not consistent with the character we have watched all season long. The show has been going downhill consistently since the pilot. This feels like a desperation ploy on the part of the producers. Too bad. The show had promise.

Maybe it is because I watched the first three or four eps in a rush on my DVR, but I like this show a lot for what it is. The blue sky aspect doesn't bother me, because it's not pretending to be anything more than that. I have room in my life for quirky fun, so long as it is smart and engaging.

As for the twist, I'll wait and see. The idea that there is an uproar over something that has not even been explained is beyond bizarre. People now feel a need to project their own disappointments onto something that has not even happened yet. That is so weird.

Whether Pete's been playing Neal or not will be revealed, and let's see how they take it. If it blows, then attack them. But to ASSUME it will blow, or even to assume the ending was anything more than some fun wink-wink that will turn out to be exactly the opposite of what it looked like, is futile at best. We aren't writing the show, and all the posts in the world won't change that.

I'm thinking that Peter is still the FBI hero he's seemed to be, and is simply working undercover to find all of the stuff Neal has stolen and stashed. He's conning Kate (although I feel that she should know what the man who caught her bf twice would look like) to get to it. I think Peter likes and respects Neal, but he's always the lawmen, straight-and-narrow.
Other possibility, as others have said, is that Peter is conning Kate to see what her con of Neal is., but again to recover Neal's stashed loot. It's odd to me that the FBI isn't actually demanding that Neal return his stash. Wouldn't that be part of any deal they made with him to release him from prison? I think so.
The ring, the melodrama, etc., is all from the writers to heighten suspense and provide easy visual cues.

This show is a breath of fresh air and I'll reserve judgement for January however, I hope they keep the chemistry between Neal and Peter intact - best on TV for buddy genre. Regarding comments on grit etc., the reason this show is so good is that it is different and brighter when compared to the endless CSIs/SVUs with tired dark plots used over and over. Also, Matt Bomer has got to be the breakout actor of 2009-10. Although he has had TV/Movie roles in the past, he really shines as an actor and deserves to be big!

IT IS NOT PETER!
It is an evil person posing as Peter.
First, his hair is slicked back-evil brother? twin? plastic surgery? mask?
Where are the tan lines for the ring?
Where does he store his cool, hip suit when he is not bugging Kate?
Much as been made of Peter's suits this season, did no one else see that the Peter in the room had a new suit on???

I disagree with how the series needs more grit, etc... I do agree Neal needs to show more of his skills as a con man. Using a paper clip to pick a lock just seems too easy for someone with his talent. "White Collar" should be a light and breezy fantasy because there is no more of that on TV. Not every show needs to be "Mad Men" in tone. Good, clever writing, acting, and characterizations are important but we don't need another "dark night of the soul" show. The BBC's "Hustle" did it correctly. It came from the same people who did "Spooks" but they went a completely different direction. Let "White Collar" be "White Collar" and let "Burn Notice" be "Burn Notice." As for ending, if Peter is suddenly a bad guy - I'm done with the show.

Mo here: I don't want WC to be Mad Men. I just don't want it to be so insubstantial that there's no reason to tune in because it's the same formula week after week.

Speaking of USA shows: Mo, I was a little surprised you didn't have anything to say last week about the series finale of "Monk." I'm guessing you're not a fan of the show (I admit, it went downhill a lot from the first season or two), but I thought you'd at least acknowledge its coming to an end, Tony Shaloub's work, etc. If you mentioned it on Twitter, then pardon this comment (I'm not a Twitter tweeter). Thanks, I enjoy your observations!

Mo here: I noted in a couple of November pieces that the Monk finale was coming up. With all the other stuff I had going on, I just didn't have time to write about the finale again. Sorry about that.

I personally enjoy the light-heartedness of shows like White Collar and Leverage. I'm so tired of the dark, sick, horrible murder-of-the-week shows all over TV. If Peter is indeed running a con on Neal, I'm done. Their partnership was what made show fun.

Mo here: I didn't say I want WC to be dark and horrible. I just think it can be more complex and a bit more ambiguous without messing up its vibe.

I was stunned at the end as well - then then thought - no way they are making Peter do the bad thing. So - I'm going with doppleganger holding Kate to make Peter look bad and make trouble between Peter and Neal.

And - they need to do something with Peter's wife. I have no issue with the actress, but the character is horrible because she is just there for no reason except to have meaningless conversations with her husband where she pretty much takes Neals side each and every time. So why even have this character ?

I would like to echo the sentiment's of the tone of the show to be a bit grittier and deeper. I do not want another Mad Men. I would just like a show that keeps my interest. I enjoy Bomer and DeKay's chemistry. It's been difficult for me to pay full attention to WC because I do not care about the cases, most of the time.
I did not enjoy the end scene; however I hope it was misdirection. I like the suggestions from comments that have come up with alternative reasons for the ending. I will be tuning to see what happens.

What would happen if Peter was looking for a way to wipe away Neil's past by recovering and restoring stolen items and working out restitution with the victims. I don't know how that plays with Fowler's group, but I think there's definitely more of a familial connection either between Peter and Neil or on the distaff side.

I can't believe people are complaining about the ending. What's the point of a cliffhanger if you aren't left wondering what the hell happens next? Wait and see what goes down before decrying how "dumb" it is.

White Collar needs more moments like the end of the most recent episode to raise it above USA's typical comfort food fare. Here's hoping this is the start of many more interesting twists and turns to come.

I initially was really excited by the cliffhanger with Peter (and boy, was my son jumping through the roof!) but came to realize that Peter can't be the bad guy keeping Kate away from Neal...it is just too goofy to have Peter force Kate to leave Neal on the hope he breaks out and gets caught again and then chooses to work for Peter. If that is given as the reason, I quit the show on principle.

I suspect the answer will be more like - Kate reached out to Peter after talking with Neal in prison, but Peter couldn't or wouldn't protect her at the time, but has kept tabs on her whereabouts. Kate may be playing both Peter and Neal for money, or she may be forced into the situation, but I think the driver of all the plot is someone wanting Neal's fortune (which seems considerable) for themselves.

I really like shows like White Collar, Burn Notice, Chuck and Psych...they are among the few shows that my entire family (7 and 11 year old kids) is willing to watch together. Most of the better comedies (Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, and recent episodes of Scrubs) are all full of sexual jokes that seem inappropriate, especially at the times they are shown (I still don't understand how 2 1/2 men can be shown in reruns at the dinner hour!), and we dropped cable to avoid the garbage shown on Nick and Disney channels.

While all the shows we like have common themes (mix of drama and comedy, fast pacing, attractive women flirting with the male leads, and a certain glamour to fibbing to get what you want) they also have a strong moral code - the leads are loyal to one another, and use their talent for fast talking to do good things for others. I don't mind my kids seeing these shows, and we enjoy watching them together. Now if only we could come up with a similar format with a strong female lead!

I loved the ending. I was watching the episode with my mother. And as soon as it was over, we both started throwing out hypotheses about what was going on. I like a show that surprises me. And the twist made me more, not less, interested in the characters and their motivations. I can't wait for the show to start up again.

I think this episode highlights the problem with White Collar: the SOs of Neal and Peter. Take Kate, she was fine in the pilot, but I haven't seen a reason for Neal to be so hung up on her. Hopefully, the Kate situation will be wrapped up in a few episodes and they can move on to better stories either with her or without her depending on how the show goes. The other weak character is Peter's wife. What purpose does she serve in the show? I haven't really made a connection to her in any way. We need to have a reason why she is in every episode other than she played Kelly. I like it when shows have strong characters, including dynamic female characters, but this show has not fully developed its female leads. Hopefully, the Peter/Kate storyline will develop into something that fleshes out her character and makes her worth watching.

I recently became a fan of "White Collar" and I can say that I was really surprised by the ending. It was an unpredictable cliffhanger. I do not believe that Peter is evil, because it will kill the chemistry of the two characters and in the end kill the show. I think that Peter is working undercover to find dirty FBI agents in his department and Kate's involvement endangers his work. So he tracked her down to warn her to stop interfering and also to protect Neal. It is a great show and I will definitely keep watching it…

I watched all the episodes to give White Collar a fair shake. It is just a disappointing show. My time is valuable to me and I will use it on Burn Notice, In Plain Sight, and Leverage. Even the twist at the end came out of left field. Feels like White Collar jumped the shark at the end of the 1st season.

I didn't get to watch all of last fall's series. I am pleasantly surprised about the different plots that will take place. I do think that Kate should be written off the show. What purpose does she have in the series. As a professional psychologist, I would tell Neal to get over Kate. She is just stringing him along. Tugging at his heart strings. Constantly holding a carrot in front of him. There is enough "white collar" crime in this world to make hundreds of shows. Keep up the good work to all those who work on the set.

Affiliate links disclaimer:

Clicking on the green links will direct you to a third-party Web site. Bloggers and staff writers are in no way affiliated with these links that are placed by an e-commerce specialist only after stories and posts have been published.